AMBER ALERT NJ - Dulce Mariá Alavez, 5, abducted at Bridgeton City Park, Cumberland County, 16 Sept 2019 #6

[lareportera]

All the details are so hard to follow. Also what witness said they saw the Hispanic guy with two kids at the park? The same one who saw a Hispanic guy with a red van? No description on the van as well, old or new? Dark red or bright red. I wish LE and FBI could clear up at least the basic details with a press conference. Watching the Dr. Phil interview , I don’t know what to make of mom. Clearly didn’t have anything to with it because she sounds clueless , not only about what happened to Dulce but in general. It was almost hard to listen to her talk, low voice , mumbling, one word responses. It’s not the language barrier per se, she’s fluent in English but just overall not there/absent minded, maybe low IQ?. I think she treated Dulce similar to a dog, where you just let your dog run around an empty park so they can get their energy out. Was it so much to ask for her to simply push her babies in the swing or interact with them? Not placing blame but maybe she didn’t have an emotional connection to her children so Dulce being gone is not like the end of the world for her. She might even think that it’s Dulce fault she is lost, because if she had “behaved”, she wouldn’t have gone off with a stranger. My worst fear is that it’ll be 20 years from now and Dulce will still be missing.

 

[casesensitive]

Noema initially questioned why anybody would take a young, innocent girl. It seemed so naive that she even questioned this.
Noema never considered nefarious reasons why Dulce had vanished (thought she was playing hide and seek) as she looked for her in the park and along a path, and later called her brother to bring the dog to search. It seems that she wasn't aware of the emergency of a missing child until someone from the park said "somebody probably took her". That's when she called 911.

Based on this apparent naivety, (and/or fear of calling police) I was actually surprised to learn in Dr. Phil's interview that Dulce had been warned about stranger danger and had been taught to scream. She had been taught to never go with anyone she didn't know, and Noema was confident that Dulce would never would do so, which suggests the point had been well driven home.

So, in addition to trying to figure out Noema's detached, unemotional response to her missing child who is in grave danger, I am also trying to understand why Noema, being well aware of stranger danger to kids, acted with a careless lack of awareness of this in the park, both before and after Dulce disappeared. You can't blame this behavior on a language barrier. Poor Noema, I think she has screwed up for most of her life. Her self-esteem must be next to zero. moo

 

[Araised_Marvels]

Someone linked this facebook post of Missing Pieces Network from Nov. 18 a few pages back.

RSBM

"Dulce’s case is open and remains very active. We all want answers, but making public demands of law enforcement for details they cannot provide accomplishes nothing and may actually be counter-productive to the investigation."

At first, I didn't understand this. I thought that putting public pressure on LE is a good thing coming from folks who are not directly tied to this case. I can understand not giving away all that they know, but at this point, it might be a good idea for an accurate timeline of events to be given. Particularly if they don't have any substantial leads. This can help jog someone's memory about someone they suspect but can't quite put him there at the park during that time.

I don't want this to go the route of the Jacob Wetterling case where LE cleared the perpetrator only to find out it was him all along 27 years later. Making sure they stay on top of things shouldn't be a bad thing. I am very sympathetic when LE goes out and searches for a missing person knowing the reality that they might find that person's body. I am grateful they understand that it is probably better for the family if they find the remains and the family can have closure versus them spending a lifetime wondering where their loved one is and never finding them.

I still and continue to pray for the resolution of this case.

 

[Trackergd]

I was actually surprised to learn in Dr. Phil's interview that Dulce had been warned about stranger danger and had been taught to scream. She had been taught to never go with anyone she didn't know, and Noema was confident that Dulce would never would do so, which suggests the point had been well driven home.

Nice catch casesensitive! So this begs the following questions and observations:

• Why would young girls (or adult males) nearby not hear her scream if she were being chased and/or abducted?
• If she was running, she would have had a chance to scream before a hand was placed over her mouth. Heck, a little girls scream is ear splitting...
• Why would she willingly go with a stranger if she had been taught not to? Hmmm...that is worth digging into.
• If you were a young girl and witnessed what you "assumed" to be an abduction of another girl or a girl being chased by and adult that did not appear to be her parent, would you not run to your parents for protection? Something seems more than odd here. If you were an adult male playing basketball and saw this, why would you not attempt to protect the child? I've seen some of the worst society has to offer rush in to protect a child in danger, if for no other reason than attention and a free meal.

What does not fit? What (NOT including the family) does not make sense?

 

[Trackergd]

S
I don't want this to go the route of the Jacob Wetterling case where LE cleared the perpetrator only to find out it was him all along 27 years later. Making sure they stay on top of things shouldn't be a bad thing. I am very sympathetic when LE goes out and searches for a missing person knowing the reality that they might find that person's body. I am grateful they understand that it is probably better for the family if they find the remains and the family can have closure versus them spending a lifetime wondering where their loved one is and never finding them.

Respectfully snipped.

In the case of Jacob Wetterling, the local police were incompetent and had a grudge against the named POI. It was lazy police work, a contaminated crime scene and a witch hunt. The FBI had it figured out to a large degree but local LE was too lazy to follow up and do their job correctly with the exception of one detective who was ignored by the chief.

I doubt this is the case here A_M. If anything, local LE is being over cautious by involving the FBI and keeping everything close to the vest. Too much so in my opinion, unless they have a really good working theory and don't want to tip their hand, frustrating as it may be.

 

[Trackergd]

1) The length in distance the dog followed the scent. I believe a timeframe of 1-2 hours was mentioned, but never if the distance was 1-2 hours worth of forward movement, circling back etc. No details were released about that to include where exactly the dog lost Dulce's scent.

2) A woman was quoted in media a few times to have seen Dulce at the park that Friday before (just 3 days prior) and specifics on whether that previous scent trail could/did complicate the scent trail of the day she went missing, or if the dog(s) could determine old paths from new paths of Dulce were never discussed.

Respectfully snipped

Hmmm... 1-2 hours. The dog gets the scent article, sniffs around for a bit and finds what he/she thinks is the scent trail (how they do this is amazing). The dog has to compare each skin cell he/she vacuums up and compare it to the imprint of the scent article, verify it or dismiss it. So based on my experience working with scent dogs, that 1-2 hour trail is a rather short walking and possibly partial running event. Yes, other peoples scents and the actors scent (if there was one) may make the dog's task even more difficult. Animal scents (sometimes just too good to pass up for a few seconds) and other environmental items can complicate things a little.

 

[CSIDreamer]

Nice catch casesensitive! So this begs the following questions and observations:

• Why would young girls (or adult males) nearby not hear her scream if she were being chased and/or abducted?
• If she was running, she would have had a chance to scream before a hand was placed over her mouth. Heck, a little girls scream is ear splitting...
• Why would she willingly go with a stranger if she had been taught not to? Hmmm...that is worth digging into.
• If you were a young girl and witnessed what you "assumed" to be an abduction of another girl or a girl being chased by and adult that did not appear to be her parent, would you not run to your parents for protection? Something seems more than odd here. If you were an adult male playing basketball and saw this, why would you not attempt to protect the child? I've seen some of the worst society has to offer rush in to protect a child in danger, if for no other reason than attention and a free meal.

What does not fit? What (NOT including the family) does not make sense?

To me, your last point is the one that doesn't fit. It's been proven that small children will act in ways their parents wouldn't imagine them to act such as not screaming, going willingly with strangers, etc.

 

[jjenny]

Nobody claimed they saw Dulce being chased. In fact it appears the guy waved to her and she run toward him.

 

[Wowno17]

To me, your last point is the one that doesn't fit. It's been proven that small children will act in ways their parents wouldn't imagine them to act such as not screaming, going willingly with strangers, etc.

This really is true. I have seen many social experiments where someone takes a chikds hand in the park and most of the children just go! Their parents when interviewed before the test swear their children are stranger aware and won't go.

Another experiment is when parents are on their mobile, the same thing of taking the child (all on camera and experiment) and its shocking how many parents aren't even aware of their child being taken until the camera crew tell them! Shocking but true.

Adults have been fooled by serial killers, I'm thinking Ted Bundy. It isn't hard to believe an adult could trick a child into running over to them.

 

[Wowno17]

I still believe that this man that Dulce's mother talked about (the man who wanted to date her) is something. The fact that he was asking her about Dulce and also this could be a reason for Dulce running over. She could have recognised the person as someone she had seen in the street with her mum, and ran over expecting to take them to her mum to say hi. But the persons reasons for being there were to take Dulce.

 

[Trackergd]

To me, your last point is the one that doesn't fit. It's been proven that small children will act in ways their parents wouldn't imagine them to act such as not screaming, going willingly with strangers, etc.

It was a question for followup discussion, and up to the group to decide if it is important or not. Depends on the level of understanding and adherence to training that Dulce had.

 

[Trackergd]

Nobody claimed they saw Dulce being chased. In fact it appears the guy waved to her and she run toward him.

Has this appeared in MSM or from a verified insider? Again, lets confirm what is fact and what is hearsay.

 

[CSIDreamer]

It was a question for followup discussion, and up to the group to decide if it is important or not. Depends on the level of understanding and adherence to training that Dulce had.

Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you were asking a general question. Point well taken.

 

[ms_x_to_the_m]

Who is going to take care of her third child? Grandparents again? She needs to have a child care plan to enter Job Corps.

So let's just give up on her. No use in trying to help her.
If she gets the help she needs, then of course she can do it. Why beat someone who is already down?

 

[Trackergd]

Hopefully this methodology helps the group:

What (in detail, what happened)
Who (who are the actor(s) that made it happen)
When (when exactly did it happen)
Where (in what exact spot did it actually happen)
Why (why did it happen...what was the motive or trigger).

Now taking this a bit further, you have the 5 why's.

What: Someone abducted Dulce, Why - we don't know, Why - because LE is not sharing information, Why- because they don't know, they have a suspect, they are worried about getting sued if they mess up the case, and on and on...

You can also do something like a fishbone chart and determine is it this or not, is it that or not, is it something else or not.

This is the methodology I use every day and in all cases I participate in.

Sometimes I will ask questions in cases just to get folks focused on the facts, what we know and what we don't know so that we don't get distracted by the MSM and Social Media noise.

 

[lareportera]

Has this appeared in MSM or from a verified insider? Again, lets confirm what is fact and what is hearsay.

There were reports that it was the 3 year old who said that someone had “waved” to Dulce asking her to come to them.

Was it someone familiar is hard to tell. Who would have known that she was planning on taking the kids at the park at that time.

I also feel the Dr. Phil show many not have been helpful in this case. Outside of here, the consensus pretty much is, let’s not look for Dulce because her mom knows what happened to her or knows where she is.

 

[jjenny]

Has this appeared in MSM or from a verified insider? Again, lets confirm what is fact and what is hearsay.

Noema is the one who claimed 3 year old indicated somebody waved to them. And yes, it appeared in msm.

 

[jjenny]

I still believe that this man that Dulce's mother talked about (the man who wanted to date her) is something. The fact that he was asking her about Dulce and also this could be a reason for Dulce running over. She could have recognised the person as someone she had seen in the street with her mum, and ran over expecting to take them to her mum to say hi. But the persons reasons for being there were to take Dulce.

As far as I can tell, police already investigated him and found no evidence. Seems like a total red herring.

 

[jjenny]

There were reports that it was the 3 year old who said that someone had “waved” to Dulce asking her to come to them.

Was it someone familiar is hard to tell. Who would have known that she was planning on taking the kids at the park at that time.

I also feel the Dr. Phil show many not have been helpful in this case. Outside of here, the consensus pretty much is, let’s not look for Dulce because her mom knows what happened to her or knows where she is.

Just seems weird that she would run to a total stranger. The scenario presented on Dr. Phil is that somebody waved to the children and she run toward that person. Which would suggest that maybe she knew the man?

 

[CSIDreamer]

I'm thinking back on the Dr. Phil interview. I didn't watch the whole thing, but I don't remember any suspicious body language. Her arms looked relaxed, shoulders relaxed.

Opinions?